Posted on 01/16/2003 7:43:37 AM PST by MrLeRoy
After fighting the war on drugs for nearly 30 years, Lt. Jack Cole is ready to admit defeat.
The retired New Jersey State Police detective -- who spent 12 years as an undercover narcotics officer -- spearheads a movement to legalize all narcotics as a way of ending the bloody, expensive war.
"The war on drugs was, is and always will be a dismal failure," said Mr. Cole yesterday to a meeting of the Fairhaven Rotary Club.
Mr. Cole is one of the founders of an international nonprofit group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition -- LEAP.
That group, which includes current and former police officers, judges and others, is proposing nothing short of legalizing all narcotics -- including heroin, cocaine and marijuana -- and having the federal government regulate them.
While that might sound radical for a detective who spent the better part of his career looking to jail both users and sellers of drugs, Mr. Cole said it is the only rational viewpoint after a career on the front lines of the war on drugs.
While spending what Mr. Cole estimates to be $69 billion per year in law enforcement and prison costs for drug offenders, Americans have seen drug supplies become more plentiful and the drugs themselves more powerful and cheaper.
Mr. Cole acknowledged to the dozen Rotarians yesterday that the idea of legalizing narcotics -- similar to policies in Amsterdam -- sounds foreign.
The first question many people ask is whether drug decriminalization will increase drug use, especially among the young.
Mr. Cole pointed to studies in which young Americans said it was easier to obtain marijuana and other drugs than it was to purchase government-regulated alcohol and tobacco products.
Holland sees a lower rate of marijuana use among its young people, in part because decriminalization has made the drug boring, Mr. Cole said.
"We at LEAP are asking you to listen and to think about these ideas," said Mr. Cole, who is pursuing a doctorate in public policy at UMass Boston.
Wow, that would pay for a lot of re-hab with a nice refund to the taxpayers left over.
Why should anyone think today's Americans have "little understanding of the consequences of excessive drug use"? And what's all this about "refuge from the consequences"---where is our refuge from the consequences of alcoholism?
This is no secret or breaking news. Everyone in law enforcement has known this for 15 years or more....
Come on, now. Using 1840s-era evidence from CHINA to predict what would happen? Do you really think that Americans today don't know the consequences of excessive drug use?
But what if a cop denounces Prohibition II and shoots somebody's dog without justification? Kev's brain might explode.
No its not---for the reasons I laid out.
it does not change my opinion regarding legalization (i'm for it)
Cool.
The Intellecutals, aided by the Cattle Mutilators and the Tabloids and using the Orbital Mind Control Lasers, attack to control Local Police Departments....
A much apter comparison than 1840's China.
I find that druggie defenders sometimes have trouble following a complex reasoning process (who knew?), so I try to keep it simple. And STILL you didn't follow my elementary, two-step argument. Yikes!
Thing is, that's all I had to say. There'll be dozens more semi-coherent druggie defenders piping up, all upset and everything... but I'm really all-done, and on to something more complex.
Dan
Well I agree with the latter, but I strenuously object to your use of the Opium War as a predictor of a worse case scenario of unchecked drug use during modern times. What was the literacy rate in China during the Opium War?
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I thought it was interesting that you predict abortion will be viewed much the same way as slavery in the 'not too distant future'. I hope you're correct, but can you explain what basis you have for stating that?
Never happen---if understanding slips, real-world reminders will increase.
I believe spending on drug education in this country is a worthwhile investment
Private charity should certainly support such education.
Thing is, that's all I had to say. There'll be dozens more semi-coherent druggie defenders piping up, all upset and everything... but I'm really all-done, and on to something more complex.
Ahh, the self-righteous arrogance of the truly pantsed!
You made one false statement and a half-assed attempt at a straw-man.
Yep. You better run and hide your head in shame. Come on back if you can think up something that bears some resemblance to logical reasoning.
Unlike drug "crimes," the crimes you mention all have victims---which means that existing and potential victims (or next of kin) stand ready to resist the crime and assist in catching the criminal. Having people standing ready to resist the crime and assist in catching the criminal is, as you seem unable to grasp, a great advantage in fighting a crime---so fighting victimless "crime" is doomed to much less success than fighting true crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.